The church before the Bible

[Scott1]

Secondly, do you really think you have any moral traction by making the second statement???

RR, you can do better than that.

Hehe... extend an olive branch.... only to get smacked in the face with it.... oh well... you can't reach some people.

 

[francisdesales]

Francesdesales, my Church has existed for about 2000 years now. It is called the Body of Christ.

That is interesting. However, the Body of Christ, in the Scriptures, had a particular means of worship, a particular organization and structure, and a particular set of beliefs. They were united in faith. Sadly, we are not united in that manner.

As I have posted before to you, there certainly is a possibility that you ARE united to the Body of Christ - but NOT separate from the Catholic Church. The Church has taught for 2000 years this fact. There is only ONE Body, and to the degree that you are united to the Church by worship, sacrament, faith, and sharing of the one loaf, you are indeed Catholic, in some mysterious way, my brother. Now, how CATHOLIC you are now, you know I cannot answer that, only God can.

Any other questions?

The issue is that you CANNOT historically claim that the ROMAN CATHOLIC denomination is the ONE started by Christ, that would count Paul, Peter, Timothy, Epaphras, etc as "members".

Why must you insist on setting up a strawman that you know DARN WELL is not true? Of course there was no "Roman Catholic denomination" Either you are obtuse, or you just like to ignore other people's writings. I am again asking you, if you don't believe me, to find ANYWHERE in the first millenium writings of the Church, the term "Roman Catholic". You won't find it because the term is a polemic invention of the Anglican "branch" theorists who tried to hide the fact that they broke from the Church of Christ.

Those men and women of Sacred Scriptures were part of what would become called the Catholic Church.

Is it a shame that there are so many different denominations - to a point yes. However, you must accept that the RCC is but one of those denominations.

No, I don't accept that the Catholic Church is a denomination. To be a denomination, it must have broken off from the "original" church. There is just no proof of that whatsoever.

What is an really interesting study is looking at the RCC as a typology of Israel - the similarities are amazing, and frankly eerie.

Typology only is meant to go so far, Radical. Do you think when Scriptures themselves use typology, that the events are literally meant to be identical to their type???

Did Jesus have lamb ears? A stupid question, but it points out that the type only goes so far.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Secondly, do you really think you have any moral traction by making the second statement???

RR, you can do better than that.

Hehe... extend an olive branch.... only to get smacked in the face with it.... oh well... you can't reach some people.

I happen to have written to Radical Reformer for quite some time and I know that he is usually beyond name calling. I am bringing that to his attention. If you consider that "smaking someone in the face", well, I apologize, that was not my intent.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

We are all Christians.... and Christ wants us to be ONE... don't you agree?

That does not mean we are one and equally in the Church and that every Christian community is equally part of the Church.

That is akin to saying Paul thought the Judaizers were also "Christians" and were "equally part of the Church".

While the Catholic Church recognizes that the Spirit blows where He wills and reachs out to other communities of faith - in which there are valid sacramental signs present, it doesn't follow that the Church suddenly feels that all Christians are now part of the Church. The teachings of 2000 years remain - the Body of Christ is the Catholic Church, and whether one is within the Barque of Peter depends on their association with that Church. That is why the Catholic Church refuses to call other Protestant communities "churches", because they lack something. The post-Vatican documents are clear on this and if you would like to discuss this further, please let me know.

Regards

 

[Scott1]

That does not mean we are one and equally in the Church and that every Christian community is equally part of the Church.

I never said we are.... suprised that you'd throw in a strawman.

While the Catholic Church recognizes that the Spirit blows where He wills and reachs out to other communities of faith - in which there are valid sacramental signs present, it doesn't follow that the Church suddenly feels that all Christians are now part of the Church.

The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.
Decree on Ecumenism UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO #3

Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can be a help to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith; indeed, it can always bring a deeper realization of the mystery of Christ and the Church.
UR #4

The post-Vatican documents are clear on this and if you would like to discuss this further, please let me know.

I'm letting you know. :-D

 

[RadicalReformer]

[quote="Catholic Crusader":1b4c9]Yes. Like the human body, the Body of Christ - the Church - is corporeal and spiritual. She is an invisible Church, that much is true. But the physical Church also, which is animated by the Holy Spirit, has form and function. And its form must be functional, which can only happen if it has structure.


Protestants would have you think the Church has a billion heads, but no arms or legs. The Catholic view is that there is one head, but many fingers and toes and appendages

There is but ONE head - that is Christ Jesus. Period.

What document do you possess that shows that pope number 2 was appointed by Peter?

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses".

You see, it helps to read ancient Christian works, rather than create fantasy historys that support your ahistorical views[/quote:1b4c9]

I did not ask for lists...

I asked for a document that shows that Peter appointed "Number 2". Surely you have some of Peter's writings where he would have announced a successor for all to know who it was.

 

[Scott1]

I asked for a document that shows that Peter appointed "Number 2". Surely you have some of Peter's writings where he would have announced a successor for all to know who it was.

Peter did not appoint his successor.... popes don't do that.... they never have. At the time, Bishops were selected by the people and confirmed by fellow bishops by the laying of hands.

 

[RadicalReformer]

I asked for a document that shows that Peter appointed "Number 2". Surely you have some of Peter's writings where he would have announced a successor for all to know who it was.

Peter did not appoint his successor.... popes don't do that.... they never have. At the time, Bishops were selected by the people and confirmed by fellow bishops by the laying of hands.

My mistake - so you have a document showing which Bishops from where appointed number 2?

 

[Scott1]

My mistake - so you have a document showing which Bishops from where appointed number 2?

"from where appointed"..... huh?

Not sure I speak that language.... but if you are looking for "documents" that describe papal succession:

St. Irenaeus, writing between 175 and 190, not many years after his Roman sojourn, enumerates the series from Peter to Eleutherius (Adv. Haer. 3:3:3; Eusebius, "Hist. eccl." 5:6).

Most important evidence is furnished by the document entitled the "Liberian Catalogue" -- so called from the Pope whose name ends the list. The collection of tracts of which this forms a part was edited (apparently by one Furius Dionysius Philocalus) in 354. The catalogue consists of a list of the Roman bishops from Peter to Liberius, with the length of their respective episcopates, the consular dates, the name of the reigning emperor, and in many cases other details.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272a.htm

Hope that helps.

 

[Imagican]

You can PLAINLY SEE now, Scot, that the words that you offer certainly DIFFER from that which we deal with every day here on the forum concerning the Catholic Church and it's teachings.

Your approach is most definitely refreshing and apparently SINCERE. I appreciate your offerings and recant my statements towards YOU earlier. But PLEASE understand that I was aproaching your comments as IF you were of the SAME persuasion as the 'other Catholics' here on the forums. Forgive me for my 'assumption'. You didn't 'deserve it'. I guess patience should have been the 'name of the game'. I loose. You win.

You can't IMAGINE the 'difference' that it makes in 'ATTITUDE' to hear one of the Catholic persuasion state principles such as those you have offered. It makes it MUCH more possible to 'work TOGETHER" for the COMMON good than the NORM that we receive in that; the CC IS the ONLY means of Salvation and that to be SEPARATE from it is to BE LOST or INCOMPLETE.

And your comment concerning edification............you ARE a 'wise man' indeed. For THAT is the PURPOSE OF THE CHURCH. Not to BE separate from OTHER brothers and sisters, but to OFFER in edification WHAT we are ABLE to ALL brothers and sisters REGARDLESS of their 'denomination'. Hoping to bring ALL together in the FAITH that IS TRUTH and THROUGH this to BE the examples that we have been offered through Christ; LOVE.

It will be interesting to hear what you have to bring to the forums. Welcome, my brother and God Bless you and yours.

MEC

 

[RadicalReformer]

I personally do not trust Newadvent to be an unbiased source. They have one too many things wrong.

Surely there is a list or a letter or something that says WHICH bishops and from WHERE those Bishops came from, appointed the number 2 vote. Surely there is a record of their "voting".

Without such information, you are basically "believing" that the other lists are correct - without any proof that they are.

 

[Scott1]

You can PLAINLY SEE now, Scot, that the words that you offer certainly DIFFER from that which we deal with every day here on the forum concerning the Catholic Church and it's teachings.

Amen brother... all is forgiven.... :-D and God bless you.

I personally do not trust Newadvent to be an unbiased source. They have one too many things wrong.

I posted them as a source so you could at least see it in writing.... I do agree that NA is not exactly perfect.

As far as the "source" you are looking for, you can do what I did: work on your graduate degree in history and go to the Vatican and look at the documents yourself. ;-)

Short of that, you can take my word for it.... I'm not sure why this is so important to you anyway.... what are you trying to "prove" by this line of questioning?

 

[RadicalReformer]

Oh, so you have seen a document or two that shows which Bishops appointed and then elected the number 2 pope?

It has been suggested that only the Roman Church has an unbroken lineage. Surely that can be proven .

Listing a bunch of names is not proof. That is just a list.

 

[Scott1]

Oh, so you have seen a document or two that shows which Bishops appointed and then elected the number 2 pope?

It has been suggested that only the Roman Church has an unbroken lineage. Surely that can be proven .

Listing a bunch of names is not proof. That is just a list.

Again... bless you for trying so hard.

Prove to me that George Washington was the 1st President of the US without consulting anything in writing. :crazyeyes:

Wait.... I think I have a picture in my wallet that might help.... it's a wallet size photo of Peter handing the keys St. Linus.... it's pretty blurry, but hey, it's almost 2,000 years old.... maybe Paul got it on video: check YouTube.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Oh, so you have seen a document or two that shows which Bishops appointed and then elected the number 2 pope?

It has been suggested that only the Roman Church has an unbroken lineage. Surely that can be proven .

Listing a bunch of names is not proof. That is just a list.

Again... bless you for trying so hard.

Prove to me that George Washington was the 1st President of the US without consulting anything in writing. :crazyeyes:

Wait.... I think I have a picture in my wallet that might help.... it's a wallet size photo of Peter handing the keys St. Linus.... it's pretty blurry, but hey, it's almost 2,000 years old.... maybe Paul got it on video: check YouTube.

You like to build the strawmen, don't you?

I didn't say "without consulting anything in writing". What I said was proof outside of just a list. In other words, how do you know the list is accurate? What PROOF exists that Linus was the Second pope?

Hey - it's your claim that the "lineage" hasn't broken. Well, prove it.

 

[Scott1]

I didn't say "without consulting anything in writing". What I said was proof outside of just a list. In other words, how do you know the list is accurate? What PROOF exists that Linus was the Second pope?

"It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing... When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria...Linus ...was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there...Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome." Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,1:1,2:24, (A.D. 325).

Not a list.... it was a history book..... go ahead.... tell me I can't use a history book now....

 

[RadicalReformer]

I didn't say "without consulting anything in writing". What I said was proof outside of just a list. In other words, how do you know the list is accurate? What PROOF exists that Linus was the Second pope?

"It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing... When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria...Linus ...was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there...Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome." Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,1:1,2:24, (A.D. 325).

Not a list.... it was a history book..... go ahead.... tell me I can't use a history book now....

still have not answered the question. Who appointed him? Surely there is record of this.

 

[Scott1]

still have not answered the question. Who appointed him? Surely there is record of this.

There might be... maybe not... I don't know if there is or not.... it really does not matter that much to me.

This "unbroken line" another poster spoke of is not really important to me.... I don't believe the Papacy to have evolved before the year 300.

 

[RadicalReformer]

still have not answered the question. Who appointed him? Surely there is record of this.

There might be... maybe not... I don't know if there is or not.... it really does not matter that much to me.

This "unbroken line" another poster spoke of is not really important to me.... I don't believe the Papacy to have evolved before the year 300.

So, Peter was not the first Pope.

 

[Devekut]

Who appointed Peter to be bishop of Rome?

We don't know who. All we know is that tradition holds him to have been the Roman bishop, where there he was also crucified. This was commonly known in the ancient world, and it is not only Catholic Christians who believe so.